Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) (09 November 2016)

Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) (09 November 2016)

The Inspector was correct to conclude that the proposed works went beyond what could reasonably be described as a 'conversion' and amounted to a 'rebuild.' The distinction between conversion and rebuild is a legitimate planning judgment and is inherent in the structure of Class Q. The application to quash the Inspector's decision fails.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: Hibbitt and Another; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 TCPA 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development, Conversion Vs Rebuild, Town and Country Planning (general Permitted Development) (england) Order 2015, Interpretation of 'conversion', Class Q Developments
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Conversion Vs Rebuild Town and Country Planning (general Permitted Development) (england) Order 2015 Interpretation of 'conversion' Class Q Developments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hibbitt and Another

Claimants

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Rushcliffe Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 TCPA 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed works to convert an agricultural barn to a dwelling fall within 'conversion' under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 or amount to a 'rebuild' and are thus not permitted development.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was correct to conclude that the proposed works went beyond what could reasonably be described as a 'conversion' and amounted to a 'rebuild.' The distinction between conversion and rebuild is a legitimate planning judgment and is inherent in the structure of Class Q. The application to quash the Inspector's decision fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 TCPA 1990 to quash the Inspector's decision is refused.